Yahoo Shareholders Nix Human Rights Motions
June 13, 2007 | by Geoff Duncan
Yahoo shareholders have soundly rejected proposals which would have set up a board of human rights and would have set the company on an anti-censorship course.
Although Yahoo has made much of its commitment to individual rights and freedom of expression in the online world, Yahoo shareholders have rejected two motions which would have set up a committee within the company to deal with human rights issues, along with a six-point anti-censorship proposal.
At the meeting of approximately 100 shareholders, a proposal from a Napa, California man that the company create a special Committee on Human Rights as part of the Yahoo Board of Directors was rejected. The proposed committee would have been charged with dealing with issues of free speech, expression, and censorship. According to the New York Times, but Yahoo's management described the proposed committee and unnecessary and that the company already had policies in place to protect online rights and freedoms.
Yahoo shareholders also rejected a six-point anti-censorship proposal which advocated (among other things) that Yahoo note sore user data in countries which limited political speech, not engage in pro-active censorship, and that the company use all legal means to resist censorship requirements and disclose when censorship takes place. In arguing against the proposal, Yahoo management argued the requirements would restrict the company's flexibility in dealing with legal requirements. The full text of the proposal can be viewed in Yahoo's Schedule 14A SEC filings.
The rejection of anticensorship measures by Yahoo shareholders highlight the dilemma of online companies attempting to operate internationally, particularly in nations like China, which operates the world's largest Internet monitoring and censorship regime. Yahoo has been repeatedly criticized for turning information on Yahoo account holder over to Chinese authorities; the information has been used as evidence at trials at which Chinese dissidents have been sentenced to prison. Yahoo is also being sued for its role in handing over information to Chinese authorities.
Yahoo maintains that while it decries censorship and restrictions on free speech, it must comply with laws in countries in which it operates. Yahoo's willingness to comply with Chinese censorship practices doesn't seem to be earning it many friends in the Chinese regime, though: Yahoo's Hong Kong unit said earlier this week that the Beijing government is likely blocking access to the Yahoo-owned photo sharing site Flickr because it could be used to view images of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.
Post Your Comment...Comments
Comment on this article
Please keep your comments relevant to this article. Email addresses are not displayed, they are only required to verify you are human.
When you submit your comment, an email will be sent to your email address with a confirmation link. Once you have clicked on that confirmation link your comment will be posted.
HTML is not allowed.
RSS Feed
Jim Warwick on Jun 15th, 2007 at 8:49 AM:
Sir:
I am not sure that the founders of our country (US of A) would be at ease with the recent events by large corporations working with governments. Their concerns about separation of church and state would, I believe today, be focused on an added amendment to our constitution about separation of corporation and state. Witness AT&T working with NSA in scanning all internet traffic, witness patents being given by our government to certain corporations without restitution to the creators under the guise of "national security," witness Google working with CIA in tracking people who download topics deemed (by who, we the people?) "dangerous," and now witness Yahoo, putting profits before people in allowing the Chinese Government to ban certain content, in order to get into their market. There seems to be an incredible lack of integrity at the top in both government and corporations. Furthermore, besides lack of integrity, there seems to be a certain cowardice running through the boards and stockholders alike. I wonder if these cowards would be open to an "open" debate? Of course not! Their style is back room sneakiness, under the cover of government - Watch out for the Brave New World, as it will not be brave or new.